Toronto sex workers group denied status in bawdy law appeal

TORONTO – An agency that supports Toronto sex-trade workers has been denied intervener status at an appeal of a ruling striking down Canada’s prostitution laws.

Maggie’s: The Toronto Sex Workers’ Action Project had sought intervener status in the Ontario Court of Appeal challenge of last year’s ruling.

The federal and Ontario attorneys general are challenging the ruling in an appeal to be heard in mid-June by Ontario’s highest court.

Justice Dennis O’Connor ruled that adding another intervener in the case would likely cause delays.

O’Connor, in a ruling released Wednesday, notes seven other groups already have intervener status at the appeal.

O’Connor says Maggie’s has “long-standing interest and expertise” in the issues and it would be more appropriate if it joined an existing intervener group.

Maggie’s, which was founded in 1986, is an independent, not-for-profit agency dedicated to providing support to, and advocating on behalf of, Toronto’s sex-worker community.

“It is the first sex-worker agency in the world to be government-funded,” O’Connor stated. “It has been a valuable resource to the community and has developed considerable expertise in respect of issues affecting sex-workers.”

Last September, Ontario Superior Court Judge Susan Himel struck down laws against keeping a common bawdy house, communicating for the purposes of prostitution and living on the avails of the trade.

That ruling is subject to a temporary stay after the federal and Ontario governments argued prostitutes from all over would flood to Ontario amid an unprecedented “social experiment.”

Dominatrix Terri-Jean Bedford, one of the three sex-trade workers at the heart of this case, has said that she is confident they will win in the end.

Even with the full weight of the federal government on the opposing side, Bedford has said she will continue to fight for the safety of sex-workers.

The federal government also asks the court that if it upholds the ruling striking down the laws, that an 18-month stay be imposed on it so Parliament can have time to fill the regulatory void that would arise.

“This is a complicated appeal,” O’Connor noted in his ruling. “All of the parties are anxious that it be heard as soon as possible.”